Meaning of well regulated, meaning of shall, meaning of infringe

[BackAgain]

One infamous Democrap politician is famed for not even grasping the meaning of the verb “is.”

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That is quite right, Mike. A well-regulated militia meant a well trained and armed band of the citizenry. Since defense of our borders from enemies without by our federal military was already engendered elsewhere in the Constitution, it made no sense to suggest the 2A was intended to give our armies defense powers in the Bill of Rights!

The 2A is a blueprint for the citizenry on what to do, a fallback, if or when all else fails and the government stops serving the people.

Time for the People to take back their country when things like stolen elections happen.

In WWII, the Japanese later admitted that their generals had dissuaded the emperor from attacking our mainland telling him that they would face a gun from behind every rock and tree!


View attachment 497394

Pretty straightforward

 

[miketx]

Yes, it appears miketx supports gun rights so he's on "my side" but that doesn't mean his reasoning isn't subject to criticism, there are wrong foundations in pro-gun opinion.

My criticism of his OP is about his focus on the meaning of words to "interpret" what the 2ndA is and what it does. From a "rights" perspective, that is illegitimate . . . The founders and framers founded this republic on the principle of inherent rights, not that rights flow from the legislative acts of man and thus defined and precisely circumscribed by the words chosen to acknowledge (and maybe protect) the right. That subjectivity and fragility and insecurity was a primary argument of the Federalists against adding a bill of rights. They envisioned and feared the creativity of future generations to misconstruct the words used in the provisions, and invent powers to restrict our rights.

This inspection of words in the OP removes the right to arms from the domain of the rights theory of the founders and framers and foundational constitutional principles and the determinations of SCOTUS applying and enforcing those principles . . . Instead it obliterates that, covering it with sand and allows new truths to be written because it puts the right in the domain of political operatives wordsmithing the right into nothingness (or worse, into an express justification for violating the right). The treatment the 2nd Amendment received in the 20th Century, that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right of the state, is undeniable proof that the fears Federalists articulated were valid.

The OP's answer to the question he presented, "What does “well regulated” in the Second Amendment mean?", is facially wrong and then wanders off into utter confusion.

He presents, "In a word? Standardized." as the "meaning" of "well regulated" but the standardization, as the explains it, is the intent and effect of regulation. But then, he says that "well regulated", "does not now, nor ever has meant, to “regulate” as in “a rule or mechanism that limits, steers, or otherwise controls” the militia".

Huh?

That end statement sitting alone is correct, the 2ndA has no legal action that speaks to, or establishes any regulatory operation. The power to regulate the organized militia is only found in the body of the Constitution; in those clauses only the regulatory authority dwells allowing Congress to write the Militia Act of 1792, standardizing the organization, command, training and deployment of the organized militia.

Note I repeat "organized militia" being the entity under regulations . . . That is because "the people", the protected entity named in the 2nd Amendment, are set apart in law from enrolled members of the militia. Private citizens are under no impressment of militia law, they are excluded from any action of militia regulation.

Because the Militia Act only commands specific citizens as obligated to serve and then only directs those who were "enrolled and notified" to provide themselves with an appropriate firearm and muster when called, the long established legal canon, expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others") applies.

The government has no claims on citizens not enrolled or their personal arms; for those private citizens, their choosing to arm themselves (or not) is an exercise of a right, an exemption from powers not granted, a right recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment.

It must be understood, NOTHING an enrolled, mustered militia member does is an exercise of a right, nor does he need any immunity from any government power to fulfill his duty -- he is entirely under the control of law. He has been armed according to the mandate / obligation in law, as set-out by Congress which is preemptive of any state law possibly interfering.



But it is stronger because the inspection of words, upon which the right in no manner depends, is useless to determine or define the right.

Double talking bullshit.

 

[Abatis]

Double talking bullshit.

Well, that's a slight improvement over "Come get them commie".

 

[miketx]

Well, that's a slight improvement over "Come get them commie".

Come get them commie.

 

[Abatis]

Come get them commie.

You're acting like a emotional anti-gun wacko. Move past your feelings and get to a place where your arguments are based in foundational constitutional principles and grounded in and guided by law.

Gun rights people should endeavor to have their arguments be as solid and factual as possible; yours are limp and wrong.

 

[miketx]

You're acting like a emotional anti-gun wacko. Move past your feelings and get to a place where your arguments are based in foundational constitutional principles and grounded in and guided by law.

Gun rights people should endeavor to have their arguments be as solid and factual as possible; yours are limp and wrong.

Fuck you.

 

[Abatis]

Fuck you.

Calm down

 

[Dadoalex]

A parade permit can't be denied because the government doesn't like the people holding the parade, nor the message the parade conveys, provided that message doesn't invite violence, or cause harm. Doing so violates the 1sr Amendment.

Rape is illegal. Not the religion. If a priest rapes little girls, he'll be charged with rape. He won't be charged with practicing a religion. That's how that works.

A person's rights end when their actions cause harm. Simply owning, or possessing a gun doesn't cause harm. That's why assault and murder aren't protected by the 2nd Amendment. But, convicting someone for owning a gun is unconstitutional.

Does the 2nd Amendment protect the right to own surface-to-air missiles, or nuclear weapons? Of course not, but then, no one ever brings that up but the dumbass anti-gunners.

The 2nd Amendment does, however, protect the right to keep and bear pistols and rifles. That includes semi-automatics and automatics with normal capacity to high capacity magazines.

BUUUUUT...

the parade permit can be denied.
"ILLEGAL?" BWAHAHAHAHA But but... BUT It being illegal is a violation of that religion's 1st.
So the 2nd DOES HAVE LIMITATIONS that amount to "infringement" to an individual...BUUUUT...Can a NG unit possess and use those weapons? So, a PERSON's rights can be infringed as long as the PEOPLE'S rights are not.

Are you seeing where we're going here?
With every response you acknowledge the obvious while denying same. That restrictions that do not unreasonably deny firearms to THE PEOPLE can be imposed to deny firearms to the individual.
BUT
Denial of legal representation in a criminal case?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

BUUUUUT...

the parade permit can be denied.
"ILLEGAL?" BWAHAHAHAHA But but... BUT It being illegal is a violation of that religion's 1st.
So the 2nd DOES HAVE LIMITATIONS that amount to "infringement" to an individual...BUUUUT...Can a NG unit possess and use those weapons? So, a PERSON's rights can be infringed as long as the PEOPLE'S rights are not.

Are you seeing where we're going here?
With every response you acknowledge the obvious while denying same. That restrictions that do not unreasonably deny firearms to THE PEOPLE can be imposed to deny firearms to the individual.
BUT
Denial of legal representation in a criminal case?

A PERSON'S rights can only be taken away via due process of the law. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That's why gun control laws are unconstitutional.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Do you need a permit to have a parade? Yes

Parade permits are not about regulating free speech, assembly, or association; they are about regulating the use of the commons, to avoid allowing one group to dominate a public property to the exclusion of others being able to exercise their rights to use that same property.

The "freedom of the press" is limited by libel laws and government sanctions for publishing forbidden materials.

Jurisprudence has established that prior restraint is forbidden. Slander and libel can only be prosecuted after they have happened, when one party is able to establish actual unjustified harm as a result of being libeled or slandered. Not about regulating freedoms of speech or the press, but about upholding one party's rights against another party's unjustified use of speech or press to violate the first party's rights.

 

[miketx]

View attachment 598770


Calm down

Eat shit.

 

[2aguy]

BUUUUUT...

the parade permit can be denied.
"ILLEGAL?" BWAHAHAHAHA But but... BUT It being illegal is a violation of that religion's 1st.
So the 2nd DOES HAVE LIMITATIONS that amount to "infringement" to an individual...BUUUUT...Can a NG unit possess and use those weapons? So, a PERSON's rights can be infringed as long as the PEOPLE'S rights are not.

Are you seeing where we're going here?
With every response you acknowledge the obvious while denying same. That restrictions that do not unreasonably deny firearms to THE PEOPLE can be imposed to deny firearms to the individual.
BUT
Denial of legal representation in a criminal case?

No....you are trying to use word babble to try to push gun control........

 

[2aguy]

Parade permits are not about regulating free speech, assembly, or association; they are about regulating the use of the commons, to avoid allowing one group to dominate a public property to the exclusion of others being able to exercise their rights to use that same property.




Jurisprudence has established that prior restraint is forbidden. Slander and libel can only be prosecuted after they have happened, when one party is able to establish actual unjustified harm as a result of being libeled or slandered. Not about regulating freedoms of speech or the press, but about upholding one party's rights against another party's unjustified use of speech or press to violate the first party's rights.

Yep...they want prior restraint on the Right to own and carry a gun...

 

[Dadoalex]

A PERSON'S rights can only be taken away via due process of the law. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That's why gun control laws are unconstitutional.

Got education?
Thought not.

Regulating firearms has been held to be constitutional since the 1830s.
It wasn't till the 1980's that the GQP decided they could win more elections by appealing to the nuts.
And just look at you now.

 

[Dadoalex]

No....you are trying to use word babble to try to push gun control........

You mean like finding an individual where none exists?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[woodwork201]

Well, that's a slight improvement over "Come get them commie".

I thought that was a pretty clear and concise statement and, in the end, is the only answer to gun control so I'll sign on with Miketx. Come and get them, commie. That is a powerful statement that says more than a thousand books of a thousand words. Your word salad was just wasted space on a screen.

 

[Abatis]

I thought that was a pretty clear and concise statement and, in the end, is the only answer to gun control so I'll sign on with Miketx. Come and get them, commie. That is a powerful statement that says more than a thousand books of a thousand words. Your word salad was just wasted space on a screen.

It's OK if you don't understand what I wrote.

Ignorance is a luxury and leads one to be content that such "clear and concise" grunts of idiocy can represent their argument against gun control.

You guys are lucky that all of the hard work has been done by people who do understand, so lucky that you need not bother yourself understanding how we (the gun rights side) freed ourselves from 66 years of collective right interpretation.

That invalidation was of dozens of court decisions holding that there was no individual right aspect of the 2ndA and that it only protected either the "right" of the state to form miliitas and/or the 2ndA right is only a right for a citizen to possess a gun when serving in the (then non-existent) militia.

None of that advancement, none of that renunciation / invalidation of those collective right theories or the Court's re-affirmation of the individual right, came about by "pro-gun" idiots pointing to their definition of the "Meaning of well regulated, meaning of shall, meaning of infringe" and especially not by furiously masturbating under a Gadsden Flag and yelling "come and take them commie!"

.

 

[woodwork201]

It's OK if you don't understand what I wrote.

Ignorance is a luxury and leads one to be content that such "clear and concise" grunts of idiocy can represent their argument against gun control.

You guys are lucky that all of the hard work has been done by people who do understand, so lucky that you need not bother yourself understanding how we (the gun rights side) freed ourselves from 66 years of collective right interpretation.

That invalidation was of dozens of court decisions holding that there was no individual right aspect of the 2ndA and that it only protected either the "right" of the state to form miliitas and/or the 2ndA right is only a right for a citizen to possess a gun when serving in the (then non-existent) militia.

None of that advancement, none of that renunciation / invalidation of those collective right theories or the Court's re-affirmation of the individual right, came about by "pro-gun" idiots pointing to their definition of the "Meaning of well regulated, meaning of shall, meaning of infringe" and especially not by furiously masturbating under a Gadsden Flag and yelling "come and take them commie!"

Your problem here is not so much that you don't understand the problem but that you think no one other than you does. You're far too impressed with what you think is your own unique set of knowledge. You're really not as bright as you think you are and others around you are not as ignorant as you think they are.

But thank you for your good intention of coming in to save us all from our own ignorance. I'm sure the intention is good even if the need is in error.

 

[miketx]

Your problem here is not so much that you don't understand the problem but that you think no one other than you does. You're far too impressed with what you think is your own unique set of knowledge. You're really not as bright as you think you are and others around you are not as ignorant as you think they are.

But thank you for your good intention of coming in to save us all from our own ignorance. I'm sure the intention is good even if the need is in error.

I said the same thing, just condensed down to A few words!